I’m not a hyper political guy. I know and support my issues, know my local politicians, and keep a general ear to the ground in political circles. I’m not defined by Red, Blue, Purple, or Green. I know a thing or two about group dynamics, city functions, and the rural and city political landscape, not much, but enough. I know enough to know that it is not too bold of a prediction to say that there will never be another republican president in the history of American politics as we understand republicans in their historic and current function.
Two thirds of the population lives in cities, and the rate of growth in general is on the move to the cities. Illinois, for example, would generally be classified as a “red” state. Chicago, however, falls into a “blue” category. Therefore, the state votes “blue” regarding presidential elections. Cities swing the states.
I live in the Twin Cities, and our folks in “red” are not much different from any other state. The folks in “red” generally try to inadequately fund most mechanisms that make cities function; public transit, assimilation programs, housing, and aren’t too terribly friendly toward what’s known as “illegals”. They like funding people getting their tax money back so they can spend it on businesses that make the American wheels move. Recall “W” giving tax breaks and telling us to go out and spend. You didn’t have to tell me twice. They like giving big breaks to big cooperate players, in hopes that when companies make more they’ll hire more. I’m sure they do hire more, right after the CEO gets another million dollar bump, but there worth it, right.
The folks in “blue” busy themselves with the programs of the city; schools, parks, assimilation programs, housing, immigration support, fair wages, and the like. They suppose to understand the inner workings of what a city needs to function most effectively. They want everyone to have rights, even if one of those rights is the right to take another’s right via abortion. Never the less, the “blue” folks get the city. They understand the blood running through its veins.
The “red” folks come across as out of touch with the city and the “blue” folks come across as being completely in touch with the city. People don’t vote for people anyway in presidential elections, they vote for parties, and the undecided vote for issues. Recall, the cities are on the rise, and issues I never thought I would care for like parks, public transportation, families not being uprooted and sent “back home”, fair wages, housing options, and care for our teachers and students, are top on my agenda now, as well they are for many people in the city. It comes down to “Issue” folk, at least for now. All we hear about is the “swing” voter. The problem is that the “red” folks continue to lose the “swing” voter, and the swing voter isn’t static. Once they are lost, they tend to shift over time to a certain alliance, and that’s exactly what’s happening now and has been happening. There aren’t as many “swing” voters as you think there are. I’m an issue voter, or at least I was. Am I against killing babies? You bet. Do I think our “red” folks have the answer as they purport to? I’m not so convinced. I suppose I would be a little more convinced, but when “W” had congress and a supreme court favorability the baby killing issue went unaddressed so forgive me if I’m a little skeptical.
It all comes down to this, cities determine presidents, and cities are less and less “red” even in “red” states. What’s even more complicated is that locally there are pretty sharp lines between the “red” and “blue” camps, their platforms, and agendas, but nationally, it is a lot less defined than you think, but that’s non of my business. So, once the voice of America’s cities speak, in my humble and semi-informed opinion, it will forever be a shade of “blue”…